__________________* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.

The claim is correct. We have Patriot PAC-III & IV batteries at these bases that can intercept tactical ballistic missiles like the ones that the Chinese are using. But the Chinese have such large numbers of them that a saturation attack would easily overwhelm those defenses. I think that our bases are, in fact, as vulnerable as the article suggests.

An Aegis cruiser or destroyer or two on station would change the calculus significantly in our favor so far as Chinese tactical ballistic missiles, but that ties down some of our most powerful ships near these bases. And not all of them are near enough to a coastline for that to work. I am in favor of a permanent land-based Aegis installation at these bases to better defend them. That could be done without too much trouble, but considering the military's budget woes, it seems unlikely unless the Congress mandates it.

The cruise missile threat is a tougher problem. Cruise missiles hide down in the terrain. so a combination of AWACS and modern fighters with look-down/shoot-down RADAR capability would be needed to stop them, along with a layered SAM defense close in to the bases. With the large numbers of cruise missiles involved, we would need to seriously increase our fighter strength in the region in order to adequately defend those bases against this threat. Something like a land-based Sea Ram system would be very helpful as the inner defense layer. That would be quite easily doable. Again though, budget realities make this sort of thing unlikely.

We are almost certain not to take adequate defensive measures, and thus we are setting ourselves up for another Pearl Harbor.

__________________* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.

No one can guarantee 100% protection from enemy attack. You wouldn't want to live that way.

What we can guarantee is that if someone, like China, were to saturate bomb a base (nuke or not) they are going to get it in kind.

Yes, it would be bad to lose those bases, but it would would be worse for China, and their economy if they were to lose some major shipping ports like Dalian, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Nanjing, etc.

Absolutely true. We have hordes of Tomahawk cruise missiles that we can sit back and launch from beyond the range of Chinese defenses, and there is little they could do to defend against such a saturation attack. That is a strong deterrent to be sure, but I still believe that leaving our bases vulnerable is a huge mistake.

__________________* I have the right to live, thus I have the right to defend my life from attackers who would take it from me.
* I have the right to my private property, thus I have the right to defend my property from thieves who would take it from me.
* I have the right to self-determination, thus I have the right to defend my liberty from tyrants who would take it from me.
* The only usable tools for these tasks are guns, and thus I have the right to shoot anyone who would take my guns from me.